Exploring the Effect of Imagery and Categorisation on Belief in Animal Mind
©2015
Textbook
52 Pages
Summary
Following the horse meat scandal of 2012 the concept of the meat paradox was created: engaging in the consumption of meat whilst simultaneously disliking hurting animals. The theory of cognitive dissonance suggests that farm animals are denied mind in order to relieve negative feelings associated with eating animals. The present study explores the hypothesis that animals will be attributed mind based on their category. The effect of the presentation of the respective animal (e.g. text/image) on the attribution of animal mind is also tested, as well as association between mind attitudes toward animals. 69 participants recruited using the Hanover social research website and University of Worcester research scheme completed this study.
Participants completed a demographic questionnaire followed by the “attitudes towards animals scale” (ATAS) and an animal mental capacity rating task in either the control (text) or experimental condition (image) conditions. The animals formed a number of categories, including food and companion animals.
Participants completed a demographic questionnaire followed by the “attitudes towards animals scale” (ATAS) and an animal mental capacity rating task in either the control (text) or experimental condition (image) conditions. The animals formed a number of categories, including food and companion animals.
Excerpt
Table Of Contents
4
Questions were roused regarding perceptions towards different meat sources as
consumers held the perception that they were eating products derived from pigs
(pork) and cows (beef) (Persaud, 2013). The same individuals however, were
disgusted at the concept of consuming horse meat "In Ireland, it is not our culture to
eat horsemeat and therefore, we do not expect to find it in a burger" (Food Safety
Authority of Ireland, 2013). This raises the question of the difference between
conventional food animals such as cows, and other animals such as horses.
Furthermore, the nature of meat consumption in general was also explored,
questioning why humans appear to demonstrate natural empathy towards living
things and yet consume a product that demands the killing and suffering of an
animal. It argues that the consumption of meat, itself, is paradoxical in nature -
humans appear to demonstrate a natural empathy towards animals and when
witnessing their suffering causes a significant level of distress. This contradiction of
behaviour and beliefs has been dubbed `the meat paradox'.
There is an increasing amount of research surrounding attitudes towards meat
and animals, perhaps reflecting a growing interest in the sources and quality of meat,
as well as concern for animal welfare. A recent poll found that almost a third of
respondents said the horsemeat scandal had "permanently impacted" the way they
chose and bought food. (Morris, 2014)
This study aims to re-evaluate attitudes towards food animals in light of the
recent focus in the media on farm-animal welfare and the sources of meat. By
exploring the nature of the meat paradox and investigating the perceptions of food
animals compared to other animals, this study builds upon previous research by
introducing a new combination of variables and methodology. The extent to which
animals are perceived to possess mental capacities, as the dependent variable will
be measured and compared across two independent variables; type of presentation
of animal (text/image) and animal category (e.g. food/companion).
5
Categorisation
In exploring the human relationship with animals, research has found that placing
animals into categories can have a significant influence on how they are treated
(Herzog, 2010), which is clearly supported by the difference in the legal rights of food
animals compared to companion animals.
A recent study conducted by Bratanova, Loughnan, & Bastian (2011) aimed to
investigate the role of categorisation on attitudes towards meat animals. Participants
were presented with an animal that they had never encountered before (a tree
kangaroo) and in one condition, were told the animal was considered food, and in
the other condition (control) no mention of food or meat was made. It was found that
participants in the food group attributed significantly less moral rights to the animal
than those in the control condition. These findings suggest that simply being classed
as a food animal results in being attributed fewer moral rights.
The bias demonstrated in this study has been named speciesism, which has
been the focus of recent research at University of Melbourne. This term was first
used during the 1970's to describe discrimination against nonhuman animals,
although it is currently often extended to any of those not classed as belonging to a
particular species. The new area of animal law recently introduced at the university
sets out to address the issue of speciesism within a legal framework. The concept of
speciesism is important in explaining the meat paradox as research suggests it is the
animals' category that determines its individual treatment. A potential reason for this
is cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive dissonance
Theories explaining the meat paradox focus highly on the concept of cognitive
dissonance. Cognitive dissonance has been defined as an undesirable emotional
state that arises from holding two conflicting beliefs (Harmon-Jones & Mills, 1999).
This was first described by Festinger (1957) who proposed that this unpleasant state
of discomfort arises when an individual holds two or more relevant elements of
knowledge/cognitions that are inconsistent with other. In his theory of cognitive
dissonance, Festinger (1957) stated that humans have an inner drive to hold
attitudes/beliefs (cognitions) in harmony (or consistency). When these elements are
6
not consistent, the state of dissonance is created leaving the individual with a limited
number of options for reducing this unpleasant state.
When the theory of cognitive dissonance is applied to the meat paradox, the
caring attitude towards animals and the desire for meat form the opposing
cognitions. In order to reduce the resulting dissonance, Festinger described a
number of mechanisms. Firstly, a cognitive method may be used by acquiring new
information that outweighs the dissonance cognitions. For example, discovering new
research that questions the validity of the relationship between smoking and cancer
may reduce dissonance by causing doubt towards old information. Secondly, the
importance of a cognition can be reduced. For example, placing focusing on the
present day and `living for the moment' in order to decrease the importance of the
belief that smoking is likely to cause a premature death. Finally, the individual may
change their attitude, belief or behaviour to be consistent with other cognitions.
When one of the dissonant elements is a behaviour, such as smoking or eating
meat, the behaviour can ultimately be eliminated. However, this if often difficult for
behaviours with conditioned responses (such as the reward of nicotine from
smoking). In the case of meat, the behaviour could be eliminated by becoming a
vegetarian, however Festinger (1957) argues that if confronted with two
simultaneous opposing beliefs, it is likely the perception of the individual will change
rather their belief or their behaviour.
This is supported by the original study that inspired the theory. Festinger (1957)
followed a religious group that had predicted an apocalyptic event. The leader of the
group, claimed that superior beings from another planet were communicating with
her, saying her group would be saved from the cataclysm. Festinger aimed to
examine how the group members would deal with the upcoming conflict in beliefs
when the prediction failed to come true. On the date of the `apocalypse' the group
leader declared she had received a message stating God had saved them from the
world of destruction, following which the group began recruitment with even more
commitment than before.
According to Festinger's theory, the conflict experienced by the Seekers between
reality and prophecy was resolved by increasing their numbers, stating "If more
people can be persuaded that the system of belief is correct, then clearly, it must,
7
after all, be correct" (Festinger, Riecken, & Schachter, 1956). This early research on
cognitive dissonance has since been applied to a number of different research
areas. In the 5 years however, the number of studies examining cognitive
dissonance in the context of meat consumption have increased dramatically. A
number of studies over recent years have been conducted by Loughnan and Bastian
(Loughnan, Haslam, & Bastian, 2010) (Bratanova, Loughnan, & Bastian, 2011)
(Bastian, 2012), providing the key current literature on the meat paradox.
When the theory of cognitive dissonance is applied to the meat paradox, the
caring attitude towards animals and the desire for meat form the opposing beliefs. In
this situation, it is the perception of the animals that change, rather than attitudes or
behaviour. The key way in which perception is thought to change is through the
denial of mind to food animals, also known as de-mentalisation (Kozak, Marsh, &
Wegner, 2006).
Cognitive dissonance and Belief in animal mind
The attribution of mental capacities to animals, such as feelings of emotion and
intellect, has now been defined as Belief in Animal Mind (BAM). Despite original
uncertainty, there is now general agreement in the scientific community that non-
human animals have the capacity for sentience. The Cambridge Declaration on
Consciousness (Low, et al., 2012) is stated "Convergent evidence indicates that
non-human
animals
have
the
neuroanatomical,
neurochemical,
and
neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit
intentional behaviours". Charles Darwin recognised sentience as "an essential
feature of evolutionary fitness and believed it to be widespread in the animal world"
(Darwin, 1871).
The significance of research supporting the possession of animal mind is
supported by studies showing when people do not believe animals capable of
thinking/feeling, they are more inclined to support animal use (Herzog & Galvin,
2007). It can be questioned however whether dementalisation has actually occurred.
For example, it is unclear if animals used in research are denied mind in favor of
academic knowledge, or whether they are perceived to possess little mind
irrespective of the situation. In order to investigate this Loughnan and Bastian (2011)
8
examined the attitudes of vegetarians and omnivores towards the mental capacities
of meat animals upon being reminded that they would be killed. It was found that
vegetarians showed no change in their attribution of mental states following the
reminder. However, by contrast, when the omnivores were reminded they attributed
fewer mental states. The finding that vegetarians showed no change is in line with
previous research that has found individuals with strong views are less susceptible to
changes in attitude (Chaiken & Baldwin, 1981).
A series of further studies conducted by Bastian and colleagues aimed to
investigate the attribution of sentience in farm animals (Bastian, 2012). This
research set out to prove that consumers of meat undergo a lengthy cognitive
process in order to overcome inconsistences between their beliefs (i.e. concern for
animal welfare) and behaviours (meat consumption). The three separate studies
investigated an aspect of this process.
In study one, it was hypothesised that when people want to reduce the conflict
between moral concern for animals and eating meat, they will deny mind to the
animal being consumed. Participants were first year Psychology university students,
the majority of whom were female. Participants were required to rate 32 animals
using a 7-point scale, based on the degree to which they are believed to possess ten
mental capacities. The animals chosen to be included in this study were based on
previous research (Grey, Grey, & Wegner, 2007); (Laham, 2009); (Morewedge, C.,
Preston, & Wegner, 2007). This use of previously used materials increases the
internal validity of this study. Participants were also required to indicate the edibility
or each animal and how bad they would feel for consuming it.
This research found perceived level of mind to be negatively associated with an
animal's edibility and positively associated with both negative feelings involved with
its consumption and moral opposition to eating the animal. These findings confirmed
the experimental hypothesis showing that animals that are considered appropriate
for consumption are attribution less mind than those considered inappropriate; a
process known as dementalisation. This supports the theory that food animals may
be ascribed diminished mental capacities in order to avoid feelings of guilt regarding
their consumption. Although these findings demonstrate that food animals are
attributed fewer mental capacities than other animals, it could be argued that this is
9
not necessarily as mechanism for reducing dissonance. In the present study it is
predicted that participants will attribute fewer mental capacities to food animals than
companion animals (hypothesis 1).
In order to extend the findings of the first study, Bastian conducted a follow up
study in which he aimed to control feelings of dissonance in order to demonstrate the
denial of mind as a mechanism for reducing dissonance. According to Festinger's
theory, when participants are reminded of the suffering of food animals, they would
be more inclined to deny the animals mind, thus reducing negative state and
facilitating their meat-eating behaviour.
Participants completed a questionnaire (one of two versions) that required them
to look at an image (sheep/cow), followed by a description of the animal (either
referencing its purpose as food or not). An independent samples t test indicated that
when reminded an animal would be used for food, participants would ascribe them
fewer mental capacities, compared to when no reminders were provided. These
findings suggest that the reminders prompted a state of cognitive dissonance,
causing the alteration of perception via dementalisation, thus reducing dissonance.
Based upon these findings the aim of study three was to test the role of
behavioural commitment in motivating dissonance. It was predicted that similar to
study two, participants whom were expecting to eat meat in the immediate future will
be more motivated to reduce dissonance by denying the animal mind, than
participants expecting to eat fruit (control condition).
As in study one participants completed the cow/sheep rating task (Time 1,
T1). Participants were then told they would be sampling either apples (low
dissonance condition) or beef/lamb (high dissonance condition). Both conditions then
required participants to write an essay on the origins of beef/lamb, during which they
were presented with their respective samples. Participants were again given the
cow/sheep rating task (Time 2, T2).
Mind ratings at T1 and T2 across the two conditions were compared using a
mixed ANOVA. A main effect of time was found, with animals denied more mental
capacities at T2 than T1. Furthermore, there was also a significant interaction
between time and condition. While there was no difference between T1 and T2 for
the fruit condition, a significant reduction from T1 to T2 was found for the meat
10
condition. Although there were no significant differences between conditions at T1, at
T2 mind ratings were significantly lower in the meat condition than in the fruit
condition. These findings support the theory of cognitive dissonance by showing that
engaging in meat consumption appears to alter levels of belief in animal mind (BAM).
As the research of Bastian is so significant in this area of research, the studies
must be critically analysed to determine the validity of the findings. Upon initial
examination of the validity of the research conducted by Bastian, the external validity
appears to be lacking. The population validity is particularly weak, with all
participants in the first study being first year psychology students, as well as
participants in the third study being offered the incentive of $10 or course credit for
taking part in the research. Males are also under-represented in this research with
study 3 using an exclusively female sample. Furthermore, all three studies were
conducted in a laboratory space in a university setting, which limits the ecological
validity of the findings.
The research however has strong internal validity, accounting for the possible
demand characteristics risked by using psychology students. By making no mention
of meat in recruitment materials, participants were led to believe they were taking
part in a study of `perceiving animals' mental states. This means that the
confounding effect of demand characteristics is limited.
While the focus has been on the dissonance experienced by meat consumers,
little attention has been given to other consumer groups (i.e. vegans and
vegetarians), with non-meat eaters even being excluded from the studies.
Attitudes towards animal use
The research conducted by Bastian et al established that denying mind to animals
can help reduce cognitive dissonance in the context of meat. Investigating the belief
in animal mind from a different perspective comes a study conducted by (Knight, Vrij,
Cherryman, & Nunkoosing, 2004), that investigates the relationship between BAM
and attitudes towards animal use. This research is based on the theory that a belief
in animal mind is a predictor of attitudes towards animal use, with specific individual
characteristics that are thought to influence the perception of animal minds.
11
Knight et al (2004) investigated the hypotheses that participants with higher levels of
BAM would be less supportive of animal use than those with lower levels of BAM. It
was also predicted that males, older participants and meat-eaters (compared to
vegetarians) to be more supportive of animal use.
The research found that BAM, gender and eating meat were significantly related
to attitudes towards animal use. While gender and eating meat had a minimal effect,
BAM was demonstrated as the most powerful predictor of attitudes towards animals,
despite no causal relationship being able to be established. These findings may
support the theory of the denial of mind as it demonstrates the differences in
attitudes towards animals with high and low mental capacities. It is predicted that in
the present study, participants who display more positive attitudes towards animals
will attribute greater levels of mental capacity (demonstrate higher levels of BAM),
than those with more negative attitudes towards animal (hypothesis 2).
On the other hand, little support was found for the effect of other variables on
attitudes towards animals. Upon examination of the relationship between attitudes
and age, the only significant relationship was found for the animal management
category; younger participants were significantly less supportive than older
participants. Knight et al (2004) suggests that this may be due to the particular
statements in this category, (all of which describe a wild animal in their natural
environment), in that young people may have different views towards wild animals
compared to food or companion animals. It could therefore be argued that the
relationship between age and attitudes towards animal use is only applicable in the
case of wild animals.
The effect of numerous variables was not only investigated for its relationship
with attitudes towards animals, but also with the belief in animal mind. It was found
that age was the only predictor of BAM, with older participants displaying higher level
of BAM than younger participants. The significance of these findings is due to the
observed relationship between attitudes towards animals and belief in animal mind.
In order to gain a more in depth understanding of this relationship, the influence of
other variables (such as age) should be investigated. This is because it could be
argued that the relationship may be due, at least in part, to the influence of other
variables.
12
A number of various instruments have designed to measures attitudes towards
animals. Research conducted by (Henry, 2004) aimed to examine the relationship
between a history of observing or engaging in acts of animal cruelty and `attitudes of
sensitivity' towards the maltreatment of nonhuman animals, as well as a number of
variables such as previous pet ownership. Attitudes of sensitivity were measured
using the Attitudes toward the Treatment of animals Scale. Developed by Henry
(2004), the 26-item scale required participants to indicate the extent to which they
would be bothered by thinking about a particular type of treatment of an animal.
The findings of the study supported the main body of research revealing a
significant main effect for gender on the ATAS, with women exhibiting greater
concern regarding the treatment of animals than men. Gender also had a moderating
effect on the relationship between the observation of animal cruelty and attitudes
towards the treatment of animals. It was found that women who observed animal
cruelty presented greater sensitivity regarding the treatment of animals, while men
who observed animal cruelty exhibited lower sensitivity, scoring lower on the ATAS.
As suggested by the author, the moderating effect of gender on the relationship
between observation of animal cruelty and ATAS was an unexpected finding and
should be explored in future research (Henry, 2004). These findings however, are
limited as participants comprised solely of psychology students whose research
participation was a requirement of the course, although both genders are well
represented in the sample, with 92 (54.4%) female and 77 (45.6%) male participants.
As research has demonstrated the influence of numerous variables on attitudes
towards animals and BAM, it is logical to question if the same variables will effects
the level of bias displayed towards food and companion animals. Furthermore, more
research is needed that may control or manipulate BAM or attitudes towards animals
in order to establish a causal relationship.
Imagery as a variable
Supporters of the animal rights movement have already recognised the power of
language in influencing attitudes towards animals and in response tries to change
current language in support of animal rights (Stibbe, 2001). Examples of the lexical
representations of animals used in the meat industry include product labelling using
13
terms "beef" instead of cow, or "pork" instead on pig. By using this terminology the
animal is represented as a meat resource for humans, concealing the connection
between the product and the killing of a live, sentient being (Singer, 1990; Stibbe,
2001).
More recently research has been conducted on the influence of different types of
imagery on attitudes towards animal rights. An experiment conducted by Monterio
(2012) required participants to complete a questionnaire that included a number of
`fake' advertisements (acting as a control) and an animal rights advertisement. The
images of the farmed animals were classed as low, moderate and high in graphic
detail. The Wuensch Animal Rights Scale was used to measure the effect of the
images on attitudes towards animal rights (Wuensch, Jenkins, & Poteat, 2002).
It was found that the low detail image was the most effective at increasing scores
on the animal rights scale (where higher scores equal stronger attitudes towards
animal rights). This was followed by the moderate detail image, and the high detail
image being the least effective. However, this effect was not statistically significant.
This study suggests that different types of imagery may influence the way people
perceive animals. In the present study it is predicted that participants in the image
condition will attribute lower levels of BAM than those in the word condition.
Furthermore, a significant interaction is predicted between presentation of the animal
(i.e. image, word) and animal category on BAM.
The present study
The current study expands on the current literature exploring the various factors
effecting the attribution of mind in animals. Research has already demonstrated the
relationship between attitudes towards animals and BAM but research has yet to
explore this relationship in the context of the meat paradox. By focusing on the
comparison of food animals with other categories, the present study explores the
effect of imagery and categorisation on BAM, alongside testing for a signification
association between attitudes towards animals and BAM.
14
Method
Design
This research incorporates a quantitative, mixed factorial design. Independent
measures were used for the presentation of the animal variable (text/image) with
participants taking part in either the control (text) or experimental (image) condition.
Repeated measures, on the other hand were used for the type of animal (food;
companion; wild; pest) with participants in both conditions being exposed to every
category.
Participants
A total number of 94 individuals participated in this research, 69 of whom completed
all conditions, while 25 partially completed the study by withdrawing following the
second questionnaire (the ATAS). This gave a completion rate of 73%. 37
participants (54%) were assigned to the control condition and 32 to the experimental
condition (46%).
Control condition
30 (81%) participants were women, and 7 (19%) participants were men. The mean
age was 30 years (SD = 15.41), with a range of 1947 to 1999 years. 26 participants
identified themselves as White (70%), 2 Hispanic/Latino; 5%, 2 Asian/Pacific
Islander (5%), 2 Black/African American (5%), 2 mixed ethnicity (5%) and 2 preferred
not to answer (5%). 1 participant did not answer (3%).
Participants were recruited using various methods. 35 (95%) participants were
recruited via the Hanover research website (a research website that allows members
of the public to participate in online research by following the link to the current
study) and 2 (5%) using a personal Facebook page.
Experimental condition
29 (91%) participants were women, and 3 (9%) were men. The mean age was 37
years (SD = 18.97), with a range of 1941 to 1991 years. 25 participants identified
themselves as White (86%), 1 Hispanic/Latino (3%), 3 Asian/Pacific Islander (9%), 1
mixed ethnicity (3%), 1 preferred not to answer (3%) and 1 participant did not answer
(3%).
Details
- Pages
- Type of Edition
- Erstausgabe
- Publication Year
- 2015
- ISBN (Softcover)
- 9783954894116
- ISBN (PDF)
- 9783954894895
- File size
- 1.7 MB
- Language
- English
- Institution / College
- University of Worcester – Psychology
- Publication date
- 2015 (November)
- Grade
- B
- Keywords
- Attitudes toward animals Meat paradox Animal mind Cognitive dissonance Carnism Empiric study Animal attitude
- Product Safety
- Anchor Academic Publishing
